Subject: RE: Diaspora, politics, and MI
To: '' <>
From: Adam Glass <>
List: current-users
Date: 09/19/1996 12:37:52
Can we get back to the subject at hand i.e NetBSD?  99% of this message
is about NT and thus doesn't belong here.

Adam Glass

>-----Original Message-----
>From: []
>Sent:	Thursday, September 19, 1996 10:35 AM
>Subject:	Re: Diaspora, politics, and MI
># From Thu Sep 19 05:19:50 1996
># Windows NT uses exactly the scheme described.  A DMA driver *always*,
># *unconditionally* allocates a "mapping register" to connect I/O bus DMA
># addresses to memory bus addresses, and *always* deallocates the mapping
># register when DMA is complete.  (Gee, you'd think the NT designers were
># old VAX hacks or something :-).
>1.  If you want machine independence, that's certainly one way to do it.
>2.  I'm sure you're aware that the project manager for NT was a lead 
>programmer for VMS.  It shows that he _still_ doesn't know how to design
>an operating system.
># The Hardware Abstraction Layer contains
># *all* of the knowledge about whether a given bus or machine needs
># bounce buffers, or no translation at all.  And while NT's performance may
># suck, this fails to be a source of any perceptable suckage.
>Here again, if you want machine independence, that's one way to do it,
>and it's probably not all that bad.  In fact, it appeared to me to be
>a great principle, but something, somewhere obviously isn't working quite
>right because we haven't even seen an alpha release for this kind of
># You wouldn't want *Windows NT* to be able to claim to be better designed
># and more machine independant than NetBSD, would you?  ;-)
>Windows NT will _never_ make either claim.  It runs on a SPIM processor
>and an Intel.  Does it actually run on a forward MIPS?
>They certainly have made no attempt to port it to the SPARChitecture.
>[Thank the High Ones for small favours.]
>				--*greywolf;